The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

APRIL 24–29, 1917

Speech in Favour of the Resolution on the War

      April 27 (May 10)

Comrades,the original draft resolution on the war was read by
      me at the City Conference. Because of the crisis that absorbed
      the attention and energy of all our comrades in Petrograd, we
      were unable to amend the draft. Since yesterday, however, the
      committee working on it has made satisfactory progress: the
      draft has been changed, considerably shortened and, in our
      opinion, improved.

Iwish to say a few words about the construction of this
      resolution. It consists of three parts. The first is devoted to
      a class analysis of the war; it also contains our statement of
      principles explaining why our Party warns against placing any
      trust in promises made by the Provisional Government, as well as
      against any support for that government. The second part of the
      resolution deals with the question of revolutionary defencism as
      an extremely broad mass movement which has now united against us
      the overwhelming majority of the nation. Our task is to define
      the class significance of this revolutionary defencism, its
      essence, and the real balance of forces, and find a way to fight
      this trend. The third part of the resolution deals with the
      question of how to end the war. This practical question, which
      is of supreme importance to our Party, required a detailed
      answer. We think that we have succeeded in meeting this
      requirement satistactorily. The articles inPravdaand
      numerous articles on the war published in provincial newspapers
      (the latter reach us very irregularly) because the postal
      service is disorganised, and we have to take every convenient
      opportunity of getting them for the Central Committee) reveal a
      negative attitudetowards the war and the loan. I think that the
      vote against the loan settled the question as to our opposition
      to revolutionary defencism. I do not think it is possible to go
      into greater detail on this.

“Thepresent war is, on the part of both groups of the
      belligerent powers, an imperialist war, i. e., one waged by the
      capitalists for the division of the profits obtained from world
      domination; for markets for finance (banking) capital, for the
      subjugation of the weaker nationalities, etc.”

Theprimary and basic issue is the meaning of the war, a
      question of a general and political character, a moot question
      which the capitalists and the social-chauvinists carefully
      evade. This is why we must put this question first, with this
      addition to it:

“Eachday of war enriches the financial and industrial
      bourgeoisie and impoverishes and saps the strength of the
      proletariat and the peasantry of all the belligerents, as well
      as of the neutral countries. In Russia, moreover, prolongation
      of the war involves a grave danger to the revolution’s gains and
      its further development.

“Thepassing of state power in Russia to the Provisional
      Government, a government of the landowners and capitalists, did
      not and could not alter the character and meaning of the war as
      far as Russia is concerned.”

Thewords I have just read to you are of great importance in all
      our propaganda and agitation. Has the class character of the war
      changed now? Can it change? Our reply is based on the fact that
      power has passed to the landowners and capitalists, the same
      government that had engineered this war. We then pass on to one
      of the facts that reveal most clearly the character of the
      war. Class character as expressed by the entire policy carried
      on for decades by definite classes is one thing, the obvious
      class character of the war is another.

“Thisfact was most strikingly demonstrated when the new
      government not only failed to publish the secret treaties
      between Tsar Nicholas II and the capitalist governments of
      Britain, France, etc., but even formally and without consulting
      the nation confirmed these secret treaties, which promise the
      Russian capitalists a free hand to rob China, Persia, Turkey,
      Austria, etc. By concealing these treatiesfrom the people of
      Russia the latter are being deceived as to the true character of
      the war.”

Andso, I emphasise again, we are pointing out one particularly
      striking confirmation of the character of the war. Even if there
      were no treaties at all, the character of the war would be the
      same because groups of capitalists can very often come to an
      agreement without any treaties. But the treaties exist and their
      implications are apparent. For the purpose of co-ordinating the
      work of our agitators and propagandists, we think this fact
      should be especially emphasised, and so we have made a special
      point of it. The people’s attention is and should be called to
      this fact, all the more so as the treaties were concluded by the
      tsar, who has been overthrown. The people ought to be made aware
      that the present governments are carrying on the war on the
      basis of treaties concluded between the old governments. This, I
      feel, makes the contradictions between the capitalist interests
      and the will of the people stand out most strikingly, and it is
      for the propagandists to expose these contradictions, to draw
      the people’s attention to them, to strive to explain them to the
      masses by appealing to their class-consciousness. The contents
      of these treaties leave no room for doubt that they promise
      enormous profits to the capitalists to be derived from robbing
      other countries. That is why they are always kept secret. There
      is not a republic in the world whose foreign policy is conducted
      in the open. It is fatuous, while the capitalist system exists,
      to expect the capitalists to open up their ledgers. While there
      is private ownership of the means of production, there is bound
      to be private ownership of shares and financial operations. The
      corner-stone of contemporary diplomacy is financial operations,
      which amount to robbing and strangling the weak
      nationalities. These, we believe, are the fundamental premises
      upon which the evaluation of the war rests.Proceedingfrom these premises we conclude that:“Forthis reason, no proletarian party that does not wish to
      break completely. with internationalism, i. e., with the
      fraternal solidarity of the workers of all countries in their
      struggle against the yoke of capital, can support the present
      war, or the present government, or its loans.”

Thisis our chief and basic conclusion. It determinesour whole
      tactics and sets us apart from all the other parties, no matter
      how socialistic they claim to be. This proposition, which is
      irrefutable to all of us, predetermines our attitude towards all
      the other political parties.

Thenext point concerns the wide use which our government is
      making of promises. These promises are the object of a prolonged
      campaign by the Soviets, which have become muddled by these
      promises, and which are trying the people’s patience. We,
      therefore, consider it necessary to add to our purely objective
      analysis of the class relations an analysis of those promises,
      promises which in themselves have, of course, no significance to
      a Marxist, but which mean a great deal to the people, and mean
      even more in politics. The Petrograd Soviet has become muddled
      by these promises, has given weight to them by promising its
      support. This is the reason why we add the following statement
      to this point:

“Notrust can be placed in the present government’s promises to
      renounce annexations, i. e., conquests of foreign countries or
      retention by force of any nationality within the confines of
      Russia.”

“Annexation”being a foreign word, we give it an exact political
      definition, such as neither the Cadets nor the petty-bourgeois
      democratic parties (the Narodniks and Mensheviks) can give. Few
      words have been used so meaninglessly and slovenly.

“For,in the first place, the capitalists, bound together by the
      thousand threads of banking capital, cannot renounce annexations
      in this war without renouncing the profits from the thousands of
      millions invested in loans, concessions, war industries,
      etc. And secondly, the new government, after renouncing
      annexations to mislead the people, declared through Milyukov
      (Moscow, April 9, 1917) that it had no intention of renouncing
      them, and, in the Note of April 18 and its elucidation of April
      22, confirmed the expansionist character of its policy.

“Therefore,in warning the people against the
      capitalists’ empty promises, the Conference declares that it is
      necessary to make a clear distinction between a renunciation of
      annexations in word and a renunciation of annexations in deed,
      i. e., the immediate publication and abrogation of all the
      secret, predatory treaties and the immediate granting toall
      nationalities of the right to determine by free voting whether
      they wish to be independent states or to be part of another
      state.”

Wehave found it necessary to mention this, because the question
      of peace without annexations is the basic issue in all these
      discussions of peace terms. All parties recognise that peace
      will become the alternative, and that peace with annexations
      will be an unheard-of catastrophe for all countries. In a
      country where there is political liberty, the question of peace
      cannot be placed before the people otherwise than in terms of
      peace without annexations. It is therefore necessary to declare
      for peace without annexations, and so the only thing to do is to
      lie by wrapping up the meaning of annexations or evading the
      question altogether.Rech, for instance, cries that the
      return of Kurland means renunciation of annexations. When I was
      addressing the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, a
      soldier handed me a slip of paper with the following question:
      “We have to fight to win back Kurland. Does winning back Kurland
      mean that you stand for annexations?” I had to reply in the
      affirmative. We are against Germany annexing Kurland, but we are
      also against Russia holding Kurland by force. For example, our
      government has issued a manifesto proclaiming the independence
      of Poland. This manifesto, chock-full of meaningless phrases,
      states that Poland must form a free military alliance with
      Russia. These three words contain the whole truth. A free
      military alliance of little Poland with huge Russia is, in point
      of fact, complete military subjection of Poland. Poland May be
      granted political freedom but her boundaries will be determined
      by the military alliance.

Ifwe fight for the Russian capitalists keeping possession of
      the former annexed territories of Kurland and Poland, then the
      German capitalists have the right to rob Kurland. They May argue
      this way: we looted Poland together. at the end of the
      eighteenth century, when we began to tear Poland to pieces,
      Prussia was a very small and weak country while Russia was a
      giant, and therefore she grabbed more. Now we have grown and it
      is our intention, if you please, to snatch a larger share. You
      can say nothing against this capitalist logic. In 1863 Japan was
      a mere nothing in comparison with Russia,but in 1905 Japan
      thrashed Russia. From 1863 to 1873 Germany was a mere nothing in
      comparison with Britain, but now Germany is stronger than
      Britain. The Germans May argue: we were weak when Kurland was
      taken from us, but we have now grown stronger than you, and we
      wish to take it back. Not to renounce annexations means to
      justify endless wars over the conquest of weaker
      nationalities. To renounce annexations means to let each nation
      determine freely whether it wants to live separately or together
      with others. Of course, for this purpose, armies must be with
      drawn. To show the slightest hesitation on the question of
      annexations means to justify endless wars. It follows that we
      could allow no hesitation on this question. With regard to
      annexations, our answer is that nations must be free to make
      their own decisions. How can we secure economic freedom
      alongside this political freedom? To accomplish this, power must
      pass into the hands of the proletariat and the yoke of capital
      must be overthrown.

Inow pass on to the second part of the resolution.

“The’revolutionary
      defencism”, which in Russia has now permeated all theNarodnik
      parties(the Popular Socialists, Trudoviks, and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries), the opportunist party of the
      Menshevik Social-Democrats (the Organising Committee, Chkheidze,
      Tsereteli, etc.), and the majority of the non-party
      revolutionaries, reflects, in point of class significance, the
      interests and point of view of the well-to-do peasants and a
      part of the small proprietors, who, like the capitalists, profit
      by oppressing weak peoples. on the other hand, revolutionary
      defencism is a result of the deception by the capitalists of a
      part of the urban and rural proletariat and semi-proletariat,
      who, by their class position, have no interest in the profits of
      the capitalists and in the imperialist war.”

Consequently,our task here is to determine from what sections of
      society this defencist tendency could emerge. Russia is the most
      petty-bourgeois country in the world, and the upper sections of
      the petty bourgeoisie are directly interested in continuing the
      war. The well-to-do peasants, like the capitalists, are
      profiting by the war. on the other hand, the mass of
      proletarians and semi-proletarians have no interest in
      annexations because they make no profit onbanking capital. How,
      then, have these classes come to adopt the position of
      revolutionary defencism? Their attitude towards revolutionary
      defencism is due to the influence of capitalist ideology, which
      the resolution designates by the word “deception”. They are
      unable to differentiate between the interests of the capitalists
      and the interests of the country. Hence we conclude:

“TheConference recognises that any concessions to revolutionary
      defencism are absolutely impermissible and virtually signify a
      complete break with internationalism and socialism. As for the
      defencist tendencies among the broad masses, our Party will
      fight against these tendencies by ceaselessly explaining the
      truth that the attitude of unreasoning trust in the government
      of the capitalists, at the moment, is one of the chief obstacles
      to a speedy termination of the war.”

Thelast words express the specific feature that sharply
      distinguishes Russia from the other Western capitalist countries
      and from all capitalist democratic republics. For it cannot be
      said of those countries that the trustfulness of the
      unenlightened masses there is the chief cause of the
      prolongation of the war. The masses there are now in the iron
      grip of military discipline. The more democratic the republic,
      the stronger discipline is, since law in a republic rests on
      “the will of the people”. Owing to the revolution there is no
      such discipline in Russia. The masses freely elect
      representatives to the Soviets, which is something that does not
      exist now anywhere else in the world. But the masses have
      unreasoning trust, and are therefore used for the purposes of
      the struggle. So far we can do nothing but explain. Our
      explanations must deal with the immediate revolutionary tasks
      and methods of action. When the masses are free, any attempts to
      act in the name of a minority, without explaining things to the
      masses, would be senseless Blanquism, mere adventurism. Only by
      winning over the masses, if they can be won, can we lay a solid
      foundation for the victory of the proletarian class struggle.

Inow pass on to the third part of the resolution:

“Inregard to the most important question of all, namely, how to
      end the present capitalist war as soon as possible, not by a
      coercive peace, but by a truly democratic peace, the Conference
      recognises and declares the following:

“Thiswar cannot be ended by a refusal of the soldiers of one
      side only to continue the war, by a simple cessation of
      hostilities by one of the belligerents.”

Theidea of terminating the war in this way has been attributed
      to us over and over again by persons who wish to win an easy
      victory over their opponents by distorting the latter’s
      views—a typical method used by the capitalists, who ascribe
      to us the absurd idea of wishing to end the war by a one-sided
      refusal to fight. They say “the war cannot be ended by sticking
      your bayonet in the ground”, to quote a soldier, a typical
      revolutionary defencist. This is no argument, I say. The idea
      that the war can be terminated without changing the classes in
      power is an anarchist idea. Either this idea is anarchistic, in
      which case it has no meaning, no state significance, or it is a
      hazy pacifist idea that fails completely to appreciate the
      connection between politics and the oppressing class. War is an
      evil, peace is a blessing....Certainly this idea must be made
      clear to the people, must be popularised. Incidentally, all our
      resolutions are being written for leading Party members, for
      Marxists, and do not make reading matter for the masses. But
      they must serve as unifying and guiding political principles for
      every propagandist and agitator. To meet this requirement, one
      more paragraph was added to the resolution:

“TheConference reiterates its protest against the base slander
      spread by the capitalists against our Party to the effect that
      we are in favour of a separate peace with Germany. We consider
      the German capitalists to be as predatory as the Russian,
      British, French, and other capitalists, and Emperor Wilhelm as
      bad a crowned brigand as Nicholas II or the British, Italian,
      Rumanian, and all other monarchs.”

Onthis point there was some disagreement in the committee, some
      maintaining that in this passage our language became too
      popular, others, that the British, Italian. and Rumanian
      monarchs did not deserve the honour of being mentioned. After a
      detailed discussion, however, we all agreed that, since our
      present aim is to refute all the slanders whichBirzhevka[1]has tried to spread against us rather
      crudely,Rechmore subtly,Yedinstvoby direct
      implication, we must, on a question of this nature, come out
      with a most sharp and trenchant criticism of these ideas, having
      in mind the broadest masses of the people. Asked why we do not
      help to over throw Wilhelm if we consider him a brigand, we can
      say that the others, too, are brigands, that we ought to fight
      against them as well, that one must not forget the kings of
      Italy and Rumania, that brigands can also be found among our
      Allies. These two paragraphs are intended to combat the slander,
      which is meant to lead to riot-mongering and squabbling. This is
      the reason why we must now pass on to the serious practical
      question of how to terminate the war.

“OurParty will patiently but persistently explain to the people
      the truth that wars are waged by governments, that wars are
      always indissolubly bound up with the policies of definite
      classes, that this war can be terminated by a democratic peace
      only if the entire state power, in at least several of the
      belligerent countries, has passed to the class of the
      proletarians and semi-proletarians which is really capable of
      putting an end to the oppressive rule of capital.”

Toa Marxist these truths—that wars are waged by the
      capitalists and are bound up with the capitalists’ class
      interests—are absolute truths. A Marxist need not dwell on
      that. But as far as the masses are concerned, skilful agitators
      and propagandists should be able to explain this truth simply,
      without using foreign words, for with us discussions usually
      degenerate into empty and futile squabbling. The explaining of
      this truth is what we have been trying to do in every part of
      the resolution. We say that in order to understand what the war
      is about, you must ask who gains by it; in order to understand
      how to put an end to the war, you must ask which classes do not
      gain by it. The connection here is clear, hence we conclude:

“InRussia, the revolutionary class, having taken state power,
      would adopt a series of measures that would lead to the
      destruction of the economic rule of the capitalists, as well as
      measures that would render them completely harmless politically,
      and would immediately and frankly offer to all nations a
      democratic peace on the basis of a complete renunciation of
      every possible form of annexation.”

Oncewe speak in the name of the revolutionary class, the people
      have the right to ask: and what about you, what would you do in
      their place to end the war? This is an inevitable question. The
      people are electing us now as their representatives, and we must
      give a very precise answer. The revolutionary class, having
      taken power, would set out to undermine the rule of the
      capitalists, and would then offer to all nations well-defined
      peace terms, because, unless the economic rule of the
      capitalists is undermined, all we can have are scraps of
      paper. Only a victorious class can accomplish this, can bring
      about a change in policy.

Irepeat: to bring this truth home to the uneducated mass, we
      need intermediate links that would help to introduce this
      question to them. The mistake and falsehood of popular
      literature on the war is the evasion of this question; it
      ignores this question and presents the matter as if there had
      been no class struggle, as if two countries had lived amicably
      until one attacked the other, and the attacked has been
      defending itself. This is vulgar reasoning in which there is not
      a shadow of objective truth, and which is a deliberate deception
      of the people by educated persons. If we approach this question
      properly, anyone would be able to grasp the essential point; for
      the interests of the ruling classes are one thing, and the
      interests of the oppressed classes are another.

Whatwould happen if the revolutionary class took power?

“Suchmeasures and such a frank offer of peace would bring about
      complete confidence of the workers of the belligerent countries
      in each other....”

Suchconfidence is impossible now, and the words of manifestos
      will not create it. Where the philosopher once said that speech
      has been given to man to enable him to conceal his thoughts, the
      diplomats always say: “Conferences are held to deceive the
      people.” Not only the capitalists, but the socialists too reason
      this way. This particularly applies to the conference which
      Borgbjerg is calling.

“...andwould inevitably lead to uprisings of the proletariat
      against those imperialist governments as might resist the
      offered peace.”

Nobodynow believes the capitalist government when it says: “We
      are for peace without annexations.” The masses have the instinct
      of oppressed classes which tells them thatnothing has
      changed. Only if the policy were actually changed in one
      country, confidence would appear and attempts at uprisings would
      be made. We speak of “uprisings” because we are now discussing
      all countries. To say “a revolution has taken place in one
      country, so now it must take place in Germany”—is false
      reasoning. There is a tendency to form an order of sequence, but
      this cannot be done. We all went through the revolution of
      1905. We all heard or witnessed how that revolution gave birth
      to revolutionary ideas throughout the world, a fact which Marx
      constantly referred to. Revolutions cannot be made, they cannot
      be taken in turns. A revolution cannot be made to order—it
      develops. This form of charlatanism is now frequently being
      practised in Russia. The people are told: You in Russia have
      made a revolution, now it is the Germans’ turn. If the objective
      conditions change, then an uprising is inevitable, but we do not
      know whose turn it will be, when it will take place, and with
      what degree of success. We are asked: If the revolutionary class
      takes power in Russia, and if no uprisings break out in other
      countries, what will the revolutionary party do? What will
      happen then? This question is answered in the last paragraph of
      our resolution.

“Untilthe revolutionary class in Russia takes the entire state
      power, our Party will do all it can to support those proletarian
      parties and groups abroad that are in fact, already during the
      war, conducting a revolutionary struggle against their
      imperialist governments and their bourgeoisie.”

Thisis all that we can promise and must do now. The revolution
      is mounting in every country, but no one knows to what extent it
      is mounting and when it will break out. In every country there
      are people who are carrying on a revolutionary struggle against
      their governments. They are the people, the only people, we must
      support. This is the real thing—all else is falsehood. And
      so we add:

“OurParty will particularly support the mass fraternisation of
      the soldiers of all the belligerent countries that has already
      begun at the front....”

Thisis to meet Plekhanov’s argument: “What will come of it?
      Suppose you do fraternise, then what? Does this not suggest the
      possibility of a separate peace at the front?” This is
      jiggery-pokery, not a serious argument. We wantfraternisation
      on all fronts, and we are taking pains to encourage it. When we
      worked in Switzerland, we published an appeal in two languages,
      with French on one side and German on the other, urging those
      soldiers to do the same thing we are now urging the Russian
      soldiers to do. We do not confine ourselves to fraternisation
      between German and Russian soldiers, we call upon all to
      fraternise. This, then, is what we mean by fraternisation:

“...endeavouringto turn this instinctive expression of
      solidarity of the oppressed into a politically-conscious
      movement as well organised as possible for the transfer of all
      state power in all the belligerent countries to the
      revolutionary proletariat.”

Fraternisation,so far, is instinctive, and we must not deceive
      ourselves on this score. We must admit this in order not to
      delude the people. The fraternising soldiers are actuated not by
      a clear-cut political idea but by the instinct of oppressed
      people, who are tired, exhausted and begin to lose confidence in
      capitalist promises. They say: “While you keep on talking about
      peace—we have been hearing it now for two and a half
      years—we shall start things moving ourselves.” This is a
      true class instinct. Without this instinct the cause of the
      revolution would be hopeless. As you know, nobody would free the
      workers if they did not free themselves. But is instinct alone
      sufficient? You would not get far if you rely on instinct
      alone. This instinct must be transformed into political
      awareness.

Inour “Appeal to the Soldiers of All the
      Belligerent Countries” we explain into what this
      fraternisation should develop—into the passing of political
      power to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’
      Deputies.[2]Naturally, the German workers will call their Soviets
      by a different name, but this does not matter. The point is that
      we undoubtedly recognise as correct that fraternisation is
      instinctive, that we do not simply confine ourselves to
      encouraging fraternisation, but set ourselves the task of
      turning this instinctive fraternisation of workers and peasants
      in soldiers’ uniforms into a politically-conscious movement,
      whose aim is the transferof power in all the belligerent
      countries into the hands of the revolutionary proletariat. This
      is a very difficult task, but the position in which humanity
      finds itself under capitalist rule is tremendously difficult,
      too, and leads to destruction. This is why it will call forth
      that explosion of discontent which is the guarantee of
      proletarian revolution.

Thisis our resolution, which we submit for consideration to the Conference.

[1][PLACEHOLDER.]—Lenin

[2][PLACEHOLDER.]—Lenin